Microsoft has announced the different editions of Windows 8: PC users can look forward to Windows 8, Windows 8 Pro, and Windows 8 Enterprise. But ARM users won't get Windows 8 at all. For them, the operating system is called "Windows RT." There will also be a set of special editions for China and other emerging markets.

I'm happy Microsoft has kept it simple with only two retail versions (normal and pro), but do we still need 32-bit versions? Can't we all just move to 64-bit?

Sadly and seemingly we do still need x86 variants. On the plus side the retail boxes (since Vista) have had both x86/x64 in the same box, so that particular thing shouldn't be giving buyers any pause.

Why 32-bit still? Device driver availability for older hardware to maintain compatibility since 64-bit drivers haven't been written yet or never will? Is their still much legacy code, Win 16 or something, that's not supported under the 64-bit version but runs under 32-bit? Still any of that out there?

Why 32-bit still? Device driver availability for older hardware to maintain compatibility since 64-bit drivers haven't been written yet or never will?

Few reasons I can think of off the top of my head, with varying validity:- Machines that can run Win7 but actually don't support x86-64 instructions.- Machines with <4GB of RAM which will get a marginal performance bump from sticking with 32-bit.- Folks who actually want to run 16-bit Windows apps.- Weird legacy issues such as drivers (that you called out) or apps that have issues with WoW64 emulation or whatnot.

Few reasons I can think of off the top of my head, with varying validity:- Machines that can run Win7 but actually don't support x86-64 instructions.- Machines with <4GB of RAM which will get a marginal performance bump from sticking with 32-bit.- Folks who actually want to run 16-bit Windows apps.- Weird legacy issues such as drivers (that you called out) or apps that have issues with WoW64 emulation or whatnot.

None of those require a separate version. Microsoft could deliver a single binary that runs both 32 and 64 bit software.

Oh yes it does. How many people will get the Pro vs how many will get the Pro to run on a Media Center PC? The latter will be in the single percentage points. No sense in making everyone run something they will never use.

Oh yes it does. How many people will get the Pro vs how many will get the Pro to run on a Media Center PC? The latter will be in the single percentage points. No sense in making everyone run something they will never use.

I think the point is that Media Center should be an add-on for the base version of Windows 8, since you're unlikely to need Group Policy support for your video collection.

If WMC is a paid add on it will make little sence for me to update my HTPC to Win 8.

If MS starts charging extra for major features in a full version of an OS (like online multiplayer on 360) or turns to a subscription model, then poor people like me will not be able to afford to be a MS customer.

As a Windows Media Center HTPC/DVR user, I weep for "what could have been" with WMC... they just didn't give it enough love!

I would rather see it built in to all versions like it was with Win7, but honestly the numbers of us out there that actually use media center is not all that big and I would rather pay for it than see it go away completely!

In all reality though, for me personally, I'll probably just stick to Win7/WMC unless there are some kind of compelling enhancements in the version available for Win8.

Few reasons I can think of off the top of my head, with varying validity:- Machines that can run Win7 but actually don't support x86-64 instructions.- Machines with <4GB of RAM which will get a marginal performance bump from sticking with 32-bit.- Folks who actually want to run 16-bit Windows apps.- Weird legacy issues such as drivers (that you called out) or apps that have issues with WoW64 emulation or whatnot.

None of those require a separate version. Microsoft could deliver a single binary that runs both 32 and 64 bit software.

I don't understand your point. To reiterate, all boxed copies of Windows come with both 32bit and 64bit discs. 64bit Windows supports both 32 and 64bit applications (generally extremely well). 32bit Windows supports both 32 and (many) 16 bit applications. Supporting 16bit apps on 64bit Windows as they run on 32bit (without virtualization) is, however, a non-starter for a variety of reasons. Similarly having a 64bit kernel with old crufty 32bit drivers is a non-starter. Using 64bit address space on a "low-memory" system (<4GB) is not harmful but could be considered wasteful (64bit binaries are generally also larger than their 32bit counterparts).

And, of course, machines that literally cannot execute x86-64 instructions could not run with a 64bit kernel.

EDIT: More clarification on why I don't understand the "single binary" comment.

Oh yes it does. How many people will get the Pro vs how many will get the Pro to run on a Media Center PC? The latter will be in the single percentage points. No sense in making everyone run something they will never use.

You don't run MCE unless you choose to run MCE.

If you don't want it, it stays there on your harddrive inert.

Now making you pay for extra features you don't really want is a more meaningful thing. Chances are that MCE will be bundled with things that really are irrelevant beside the fact that you have to buy them too in order to get MCE.

Probably makes more sense to have MCE as a separate product at that point.

Oh yes it does. How many people will get the Pro vs how many will get the Pro to run on a Media Center PC? The latter will be in the single percentage points. No sense in making everyone run something they will never use.

You don't run MCE unless you choose to run MCE.

If you don't want it, it stays there on your harddrive inert.

Now making you pay for extra features you don't really want is a more meaningful thing. Chances are that MCE will be bundled with things that really are irrelevant beside the fact that you have to buy them too in order to get MCE.

Probably makes more sense to have MCE as a separate product at that point.

More critically media codecs licensed specifically for MCE-particular scenarios won't be licensed in the common case, which I think is the big goal here (disclaimer: work for msft, not on Windows, have no idea about this strategy/product, they want me to periodically mention the fact all the same.)

I must commend them for finally simplifying things. Though I do question still requiring a Pro version, I see it as the version with features 95% of people won't actually need unless they're on a work machine. If the normal version keeps HD usage small, I will consider upgrading to it from 7 on my MacBook Air's BootCamp.

Few reasons I can think of off the top of my head, with varying validity:- Machines that can run Win7 but actually don't support x86-64 instructions.- Machines with <4GB of RAM which will get a marginal performance bump from sticking with 32-bit.- Folks who actually want to run 16-bit Windows apps.- Weird legacy issues such as drivers (that you called out) or apps that have issues with WoW64 emulation or whatnot.

None of those require a separate version. Microsoft could deliver a single binary that runs both 32 and 64 bit software.

I don't understand your point. To reiterate, all boxed copies of Windows come with both 32bit and 64bit discs. 64bit Windows supports both 32 and 64bit applications (generally extremely well). 32bit Windows supports both 32 and (many) 16 bit applications. Supporting 16bit apps on 64bit Windows as they run on 32bit (without virtualization) is, however, a non-starter for a variety of reasons. Similarly having a 64bit kernel with old crufty 32bit drivers is a non-starter. Using 64bit address space on a "low-memory" system (<4GB) is not harmful but could be considered wasteful (64bit binaries are generally also larger than their 32bit counterparts).

And, of course, machines that literally cannot execute x86-64 instructions could not run with a 64bit kernel.

EDIT: More clarification on why I don't understand the "single binary" comment.

What it means is the 64 bit version of windows can run x86 and 64 bit stuff. If MS is sticking to their original goal there will not be a 32 bit only version.

Oh yes it does. How many people will get the Pro vs how many will get the Pro to run on a Media Center PC? The latter will be in the single percentage points. No sense in making everyone run something they will never use.

You don't run MCE unless you choose to run MCE.

If you don't want it, it stays there on your harddrive inert.

Now making you pay for extra features you don't really want is a more meaningful thing. Chances are that MCE will be bundled with things that really are irrelevant beside the fact that you have to buy them too in order to get MCE.

Probably makes more sense to have MCE as a separate product at that point.

More critically media codecs licensed specifically for MCE-particular scenarios won't be licensed in the common case, which I think is the big goal here (disclaimer: work for msft, not on Windows, have no idea about this strategy/product, they want me to periodically mention the fact all the same.)

Yep. In particular the MPEG2 CODEC. MS is paying royalties to MPEG LA for every single copy of Windows shipped with MPEG2 CODEC. So they only include them in the premium version of Windows and pass the cost to the end user by charging more for said premium version.

What it means is the 64 bit version of windows can run x86 and 64 bit stuff.

Which it can and has done (or done well) since XP-64/Server 2003-x64 (or since Vista/Server 2008 to qualify as "well"). This is why I'm confused. 32-bit though still addresses the niche of 16 bit apps and older machines.

Oh yes it does. How many people will get the Pro vs how many will get the Pro to run on a Media Center PC? The latter will be in the single percentage points. No sense in making everyone run something they will never use.

You don't run MCE unless you choose to run MCE.

If you don't want it, it stays there on your harddrive inert.

Now making you pay for extra features you don't really want is a more meaningful thing. Chances are that MCE will be bundled with things that really are irrelevant beside the fact that you have to buy them too in order to get MCE.

Probably makes more sense to have MCE as a separate product at that point.

More critically media codecs licensed specifically for MCE-particular scenarios won't be licensed in the common case, which I think is the big goal here (disclaimer: work for msft, not on Windows, have no idea about this strategy/product, they want me to periodically mention the fact all the same.)

Yep. In particular the MPEG2 CODEC. MS is paying royalties to MPEG LA for every single copy of Windows shipped with MPEG2 CODEC. So they only include them in the premium version of Windows and pass the cost to the end user by charging more for said premium version.

Unless they're going to make it so that Windows can't play DVDs (which doesn't require Media Center today, so shouldn't require it in Windows 8) that doesn't explain anything.

Similarly, they can't get rid of H.264, since it's their solution for HTML5 video.

Oh yes it does. How many people will get the Pro vs how many will get the Pro to run on a Media Center PC? The latter will be in the single percentage points. No sense in making everyone run something they will never use.

You don't run MCE unless you choose to run MCE.

If you don't want it, it stays there on your harddrive inert.

Now making you pay for extra features you don't really want is a more meaningful thing. Chances are that MCE will be bundled with things that really are irrelevant beside the fact that you have to buy them too in order to get MCE.

Probably makes more sense to have MCE as a separate product at that point.

More critically media codecs licensed specifically for MCE-particular scenarios won't be licensed in the common case, which I think is the big goal here (disclaimer: work for msft, not on Windows, have no idea about this strategy/product, they want me to periodically mention the fact all the same.)

Yep. In particular the MPEG2 CODEC. MS is paying royalties to MPEG LA for every single copy of Windows shipped with MPEG2 CODEC. So they only include them in the premium version of Windows and pass the cost to the end user by charging more for said premium version.

The interesting thing is what that means for HTML 5 video on the non-Pro version.

They can force that shitty horrible GUI on everyone but can't go pure 64bit only? For everyone who needs 32bit they can stick with Windows 7. They might as well get rid of backwards compatibility and start from a clean slate. I guess that's the job of the ARM build. Hopefully that does well enough that MS realizes they can do a complete clean break with the next version of Windows and drop all legacy code. It's time.

Good article discussing this. My takeaway was that some stuff (e.g. DVD playback) would need to be licensed by the hardware vendor and other stuff (e.g. surround sound) never made sense on 99% of laptops anyway. So why license it for all copies if it's not getting used enough to warrant it?